2 ms·

relevant: how to disagree: """ After he has said, "I understand but I disagree," he can make the following remarks to the author: (1) "You are uninformed"; (2)

by krosaen 15y ago

relevant: how to disagree: """ After he has said, "I understand but I disagree," he can make the following remarks to the author: (1) "You are uninformed"; (2) "You Are misinformed"; (3) "You are illogical - your reasoning is not cogent"; (4) "Your analysis is incomplete." """ http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&lpg=PA154&vq=disagree&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q=i%20understand%20but%20i%20disagree&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&lpg=PA154&... With this in mind, I think saying "I love mercurial" without at least referencing git, the more popular DCVS, will be less convincing since anyone can say, "Your analysis is incomplete - haven't you tried the most popular DCVS?"

mmatants 15y ago
I agree: the issue with "I love X" as a pure statement is that it has nothing to do with why we argue on the Internet. Debating a topic is supposed to enrich us on that subject. I have changed my opinion on things before, based on Slashdot comments (this was way back), and now based on HN comments. Of course, there is also the need to portray ourselves as clever. That's the real driver for flamewars: sophistry. But saying "I love X" does nothing for either cause. People interested in rational decision-making are not engaged; trolls are not discouraged; and newbies are not educated on how to argue better. (edit: fixed a run-on sentence)